Download Critical Thinking and Philosophy

Informal Logic
IX.2&3, Spring & Fall 1987
Critical Thinking and Philosophy
PHILIP A. PECORINO Queensborough Community College, CUNY
The question I wish to raise is: Just
what is the relationship of critical thinking to philosophy? On the one hand, it
can readily be acknowledged that critical
thinking is what philosophers do, and
that teaching critical thinking can be
construed, at least in part, to be teaching
philosophy. On the other hand, does
teaching critical thinking alone suffice to
introduce students to philosophy? Is
critical thinking a necessary or a sufficient condition for philosophy?
What has led me to raise this issue is
a condition that has arisen in the last few
years at many two-year colleges and
universities across the United States.
Philosophers have been successful in introducing critical thinking or informal
logic courses into the curriculum and in
having them considered as philosophy
courses. Then, in many instances, the
credits taken in such courses have been
applied toward the satisfaction of degree
requirements in the liberal arts, the
humantities, and (in the situation that
concerns me most) in philosophy. At
many two-year colleges, and to a lesser
extent at some four-year colleges, it is
now possible to take a course in (ritical
thinking, practical reasoning or informal
logic and not only have it count as a
philosophy course but have it satisfy the
philosophy requirement Or part of the
liberal arts requirement. The question I
put before my colleagues is: what should
be the content of such courses if they
are to perform the function within the
curriculum that requirements in
philosophy were meant to serve? What
justifies having a course in critical thinking as an introduction to philosophy?
Should a course which deals primarily
with form, processes, and thinking skills,
be considered capable of accomplishing
what the standard introduction to
philosophy courses could do for the
students? Can courses which concentrate on form be equated with courses
which are heavy with substance?
In order to look at the problem in
more concrete terms the question is
recast as follows: how can a student
claim to have taken a course in
philosophy or to have completed the
philosophy requirement if he or she has
taken a course on critical thinking but
has not read or heard a single work of
or about any of the great philosophers
and has never even learned of the major branches of philosophy, let alone
studied any work, major or minor, in
those areas? What content should such
courses have in order to satisfy minimally the intention of educators in having
philosophy in the liberal arts and science
core of any degree program?
Before going on, some disclaimers
are in order, to avoid misconceptions.
First, I am not opposed to the development of critical thinking or informal logic
courses. I believe that they are a valuable
addition to the curriculum and would
like to see the demonstration of a proficiency in these areas as a requirement
for any undergraduate degree. As to how
best to insure the development of these
skills, that is another matter. I have
argued for the inclusion of critical thinking courses in various curricula. Indeed,
I have argued elsewhere, that along with
courses in applied ethics, courses in
critical thinking are perhaps the most appropriate way to involve students with
the philosophic tradition. 1 These two
areas appear, to me at least, to capture
more of the Socratic heritage than most
other
approaches
to
teaching
philosophy to undergraduates. I have
142
Philip A. Pecorino
also played some small role in promoting the development of such
courses. 2 Second, I do not argue that
such cou rses shou Id be considered
philosophy. I believe that philosophers
are very well suited to teach such
courses, that informal logic and reasoning are subjects more appropriate for
philosophical inquiry and reflection than
any other method of analysis or study,
and that, in good measure, philosophers
more typically display the characteristics
of critical thought in a self-conscious
way, and in a more thoroughgoing
fashion, than thinkers in any other field.
Third, I most especially do not want to
oppose a trend that has been the saving
grace for the employment of many
philosophers and for the survival of
many philosophy programs. Indeed, I
am well aware that in some institutions
of higher learning courses on critical
thinking are fast becoming the "bread
and butter" courses for the teaching
staff. I can easily understand how this is
happening. My concern is with what it
portends for philosophy instruction if
the trend continues unabated without
philosophical reflection about it.
In many institutions the success of
the courses in critical thinking in both
an academic and a political sense can be
attributed to the steady decline in the
level of proficiency in the basic communication skills demonstrated by
students seeking entry to post secondary
education. In fact the level of the
underlying intellectual skills prerequisite
to and identified with those communication skills is deplorably below what one
would expect of such students. The
development of those skills has become
an undeniable part of the agenda, overt
or covert, of almost every institution of
higher learning in the U.S. and Canada.
Courses in critical thinking are in fact a
reflection of that agenda. However, have
these courses in the process allowed, or
even encouraged, the co-option or
subversion of philosophy by academic
administrators, who have little or no appreciation for the philosophic tradition,
and who would reduce philosophy instruction to whatever serves the present
social agenda of the institution? My
suspicion is that this has happened. 3 In
some institutions the development of
critical thinking courses is welcomed as
a way to satisfy the philosophy requirement, while mostly performing the
remedial
function
the college
acknowledges that it must serve.
To see what is happening one might
look at current textbooks. In reviewing
critical thinking textbooks and course
syllabi which have been produced over
the last decade, I am struck by the
almost total absence of any reference to
the classical tradition in philosophy. In
most textbooks there is almost no mention or use made of passages by well
know philosophers, either as illustrations or in exercises. What is implied if
philosophers are content to see students
take such a course as their only
philosophy course or have it serve as
their introduction to the discipline? In
most two-year colleges where
philosophy is offered, and in many fouryear colleges, students will take but one
philosophy course, if they take any, and
the most popular courses are in critical
thinking or applied ethics, which
characteristically are offered without any
prerequisites in philosophy. If
philosophers remain content with the
enrollment figures, does this mean that
they are content as well with the indentification of philosophy with a set of intellectual skills: an identification made
through the textbooks and curricula for
such courses?
Is philosophy merely or mainly a
methodology or does it have subject
matter that is unique to it as a field of
study? And who is to answer these questions? The significant point is that while
they have been the subject for
philosophical dialogue and reflection for
millenia, they have hitherto been questions which philosophers themselves
raised and debated. Now, however, it appears that the forces active within the
academic marketplace are playing a role
Critical Thinking and Philosophy 143
not only in addressing these questions
but in answering them as well. Factors
other than philosophical consideration
and reasoned discourse are operating to
define what is to be considered
philosophy, how it is to be valued and
what purposes it is to serve. In very practical terms when non-philosophers
determine the form in which philosophy
is to be offered, and when that determination is based on enrollment figures
or on the institution's need to remedy
students' academic deficiencies, with no
demur by philosophers, then the conception of philosophy is being shaped
by non-philosophical activities and
concerns.
Instructors in disciplines other than
philosophy look to philosophers to improve students' basic reasoning skills so
those students enter their classes better
prepared to master their subjects.
Philosophers at many institutions have
been all too happy to oblige. However,
something may have been lost in this accommodation. Philosophy was probably
introduced into the curriculum as a
"humanities" subject-as a way of
transmitting something of the cultural
heritage an educated person ought to
possess-and not simply because it
would be nice or useful for them to have
nor because it gives employment to
philosophers. It is owed to them by the
previous generation, an obligation that
was assumed by educational institutions.
Access to the philosophical heritage is
a student's right and it is part of the duty of colleges and universities to see that
access realized. It is part of the student's
cultural legacy towards which higher
education provides the means for acquisition. Unfortunately, a good part of
this perspective is often lost when administrators and instructors with too
much concern for the economic aspects
of enrollment patterns attempt to satisfy
students' immediate needs, paying too
little attention to past heritage and the
long term needs of the students and
their civilization. It isn't only or principally philosophy which has been so in-
fluenced by such factors. Far too many
college courses in English literature have
been reduced to little more than composition classes. Such courses are seen
as serving the development of reading
and writing skills while the value of the
literary heritage is diminished. Just as the
study of English literature is being reduced to proficiency in grammar and syntax, is the study of philosophy to be
reduced to proficiency in the identification of fallacies and the evaluation of
arguments? Are we to have an
enroll ment-d riven definition of the basic
humanities disciplines?
To return to the question posed at the
beginning of these remarks: is critical
thinking philosophy? Is philosophy to be
equated with critical thinking to the
point that a single course in critical
thinking may be construed as having
properly introduced a student to
philosophy? I maintain that, while
courses in critical thinking are
philosophy they should not be used as
substitutes for introductory philosophy
courses. Critical thinking courses are to
be considered as philosophy courses
because they introduce students to, and
aim to develop in them, the intellectual
processes typically characteristic of
philosophical discourse and reflection.
They take as subject matter, if only in
passing, questions of an epistemological
nature which are well within the province of philosophy. Still, most critical
thinking courses make no effort to introduce the scope of the philosophical
tradition or the various branches or
areas of philosophy, or the most significant traditions within the philosophic
heritage. So they ought not be considered appropriate vehicles for introducing students to philosophy. Consequently, where there is a requirement
in philosophy that was founded upon a
desire to introduce students to the
ph ilosophical traditions and heritage,
courses in critical thinking ought not be
used to satisfy that requirement, or else
they should be modified to include
material which is now absent from them.
144
Philip A. Pecorino
Three additional points are worth
mentioning at this point. The first is that
the traditional introduction to
philosophy courses may in the past have
placed too much emphasis on the
substance of the tradition, on the content of philosophical discourse, and paid
too little attention to the processes, skills
and methods which produced those
ideas. This may be a sin for which the
discipline is now paying.
The second point is that the path for
this equation of informal logic and
critical thinking with the whole of
philosophy was often paved by those
situations in which courses in symbolic
logic were permitted to satisfy
philosophy requirements in their entirety.4 Rather than using that precendent to
justify the present substitution of critical
thinking instruction for philosophy, it is
time to challenge the attempt to restrict
the rationale for a philosophy requirement in the undergraduate curriculum
to just the development of basic reasoning skills. The development of such skills
is worthwhile, but the philosophical
tradition has much more to offer. It
ought to introduce students to those
ideas which have marked the tradition
as unique for millenia: truth, knowledge,
and validation, yes: but also beauty,
goodness, the nature of being, the existence and nature of a god, the meaning of a human life, the nature and value
of art, religion and science, and even the
nature and value of philosophy.
The third and final point is that learning critical thinking is not something
which people had heretofore done by
taking a specific course. In fact it would
probably not be inaccurate to claim that
those teaching such courses today did
not themselves ever take one.
Philosophers have learned to be critical
thinkers in good measure through the
study of the works of philosophers and
through discourse with philosophers. It
is in the study of the philosophical
heritage that one sees evidence of
critical thinking, indeed some of the
finest examples of critical thinking the
human species has produced. The study
of that tradition through the works
themselves has served well to instruct
others to become critical thinkers.
Teaching the works of that tradition,
with attention to the development of the
intellectual skills, methods, and
stratagem which produced them, would
not be such a bad way to teach critical
thinking today and it might serve
students in more ways than most critical
thinking courses do at present.
So, critical thinking and informal
logic courses? Yes, by all means and for
all students, because all educated people, and certainly all those who are
awarded degrees in higher education,
ought to evidence critical thinking skills.
Howeve~suchcou~esoughtnotbeu~
ed to satisfy a philosophy or a
humanities requirement, for that would
be to reduce philosophy to but a small
part of what it has been, is and should
continue to be.
Notes
1
I presented papers at the Eastern Division meeting of the American
Philosophical Association in 1979,
"Ethics and Career Education," and in
1981, "Informal Logic and the TwoYear Curriculum," for the Committee
on Teaching Philosophy at Two-Year
Colleges.
2
I organized and presented workshops
on teaching critical thinking for the
Community College Humanities
Association, funded in part by the
Matchette Foundation, which were offerred in various locations across the
U.S. in 1983 and 1985. I presented
workshops at the Conference on
Critical Thinking in Newport News,
VA. 1985 & 1986. I have served as a
consultant to several colleges in the
U.S. who were interested in developing a course or program in critical
thinking.
3
At one technical college in South
Critical Thinking and Philosophy 145
Carolina the academic dean has announced his intention to make critical
thinking a required course for all
students starting in the Fall of 1987.
He intends to use the one and only
three-credit humanities requirement
in the core program to do so. This one
act will effectively destroy even the
possibility of a philosophy program,
not to mention the equally disastrous
results for the literature, history, art
and music programs.
There are other colleges, particularly two-year colleges, where the
only courses being taught by the
philosophy staff are critical thinking
courses.
4
Colleges that permit logic courses to
satisfy a philosophy requirement include: Long Island University, C.W.
Post; City University of New York,
Queensborough .
Dr. Philip A. Pecorino, Department of
Social Sciences, Queensborough Community College of CUNY, Bayside, NY
11364.
0